The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Mike, your Air and Breath in Lead Vocals
Old 3rd June 2004
  #1
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
Mike, your Air and Breath in Lead Vocals

Mike (and others who would like to contribute with your methods and ideas on this subject),

One thing that I have tried to achieve is your lead vocal sound in 'You've Got A Way' on Shanias' 'Come On Over' album. There is so much air and breath on the Lead Vox it almost sounds like someone is whispering along with the Lead vocal. I also noticed this in Faith Hills 'Breathe'.(No pun intended) I have tried a few methods with no luck.

How did you do it on that track?

What was your comp, EQ, verb chain etc that you used for mixing?

What mics, pres and comps where used for the tracking on the lead and backing vox on that track?

I just cant seem to get a similar result.

Shane
Old 3rd June 2004
  #2
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
I guess I'll start with a few methods I've tried.

One method I tried (Dont laugh to hard) was a separate whisper track. Rolled off everything under 1kHz, boosted alot around 12-16 kHz and then compressed it like crazy. It worked okay but I found it was tricky to get a good whisper out of the singer. It had to be a certain 'type' of whisper and it has to be very tight or it just doesnt sound good. It also takes awhile to coach the singer through it to get it right and then I have to do alot of editing to get it tight with the Lead. I love experimenting with techniques like this though.

The other method I tried was to parallel the vocal and on the paralleled track I filtered out all the bottom around 350-400Hz, boosted some 4-7kHz and then applied a high pass EQ boost around 17-18Khz quite abit followed by massive compression. I then mixed this in to add the air. It worked ok but not quite the same.

Another approach I did was to parallel (mult) the Lead Vocal. On the paralleled track I high passed filtered everything under 7kHz and then boosted it all alot. I then followed this with about 20:1 compression. Also on the paralleled track I deleted all the esses and consonants or they will shave off the sideburns. This seemed to work also.

Shane
Old 3rd June 2004
  #3
Lives for gear
 
DanV's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Shan
Mike (and others who would like to contribute with your methods and ideas on this subject),
I'll bite.

I like to mult the vocals - eq to taste - add a very short reverb with hardly any predelay - sometimes add a light chorusing and or harmonic exciter - sometimes multiband expand/compress slightly - and mix with other vocal channel to taste.

I think recording with the right mic and the right flavor of pre really is the best ways to obtain that special air - processing vocals that are already very dark in the highs is a lot harder to compensate for imo.
Old 3rd June 2004
  #4
Captain
 
Mike Shipley's Avatar
 

Well Shania's vocal sound takes a lot of bouncing and re-bouncing really. In a song like "you've got a way'' she obviously sang it kinda breathy but in order to get that sound in the whole song took a lot of work.
Again with Mutt it is just gonna take as long as it takes to get the sound so for all the vocals on that record (and others with him) I would automate the eq on every consonant/syllable and I did it on that record using the SSL automated eq that they built fot the G console. We had a J so we bought a G+ computer to slave off the smpte of the J so we could run the G+eq!!!. there are 2 eq's in one package so I could go out of one and into the other so that I could safely seek out some horrid frequency one one consonant and leave the other eq for the following sylable!!!!!! It was mindnumbingly laborious but was the only way to get rid of masking frequencies in the upper mids and find the area to boost etc.
This would take a day or so per song and as silly as it sounds , really helps. Mutts opinion is that it's the only way to make the vocal be extra loud and not have offensive frequencies and on that record , it's just sold over the 40 million sales mark internationally and for really believes that songs and sound are important , so it's whatever it takes on both acounts.
There wasnt a lot of compression..an LA2 that works for her and riding the vocal into the track would take about a day...we would ride every nuance to give more charachter.
1
Share
Old 3rd June 2004
  #5
Lives for gear
 
jpaudio's Avatar
 

Wow... and I thought i'd seen attention to detail before... Mike and Mutt have taken it to a whole new level! It seems almost hard to believe upon first read, but I wouldn't doubt it one bit after thinking it over. Now, does that mean i'll try the technique? Maybe with a long weekend and loaded pistol on the meter bridge

Mike, is this technique commonplace for you when budget allows for the time? or specific to Shania?
Old 3rd June 2004
  #6
Captain
 
Mike Shipley's Avatar
 

It's specific to work with Mutt to that degree, even in the days before DAW's on a Mutt mix I would have a 32 band graphic in my lap frantically doing major vocal eq moves while banging on delays,panning stuff and doing other stuff as the mix went down !!
I still pay a lot of attention to the vocal and do whatever I need to get it to work properly in the track and that can still mean a lot of work because of how a lot of digitally recorded vocal's sound in general to me and having gone thru the vocal thing with Mutt and with the help of Protools we've got it down to a fine art so what ever surgury is needed is easily done with the Plugs I use.
1
Share
Old 3rd June 2004
  #7
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally posted by shipshape
with the help of Protools we've got it down to a fine art so what ever surgury is needed is easily done with the Plugs I use.
Which plug ins do you use?
Old 3rd June 2004
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by shipshape
Well Shania's vocal sound takes a lot of bouncing and re-bouncing really. Again with Mutt it is just gonna take as long as it takes to get the sound It was mindnumbingly laborious but was the only way to get rid of masking frequencies in the upper mids and find the area to boost etc.
This would take a day or so per song and as silly as it sounds , really helps.
This is amazing to me. I can't imagine anyone doing this on, say, a Dusty Springfield recording from the 60's or any of the fantastic vocal performances recorded during the "golden era", yet the vocals sound fantastic on all these records!! Every word, every syllable; distinct, clear and clearly audible.

I've never heard the track which is the subject of this thread, so I'll reserve comment, but what's the deal these days with such colossal patchwork. It's either lack of talent on the singer's part (likely) or it's a "because it's there and we CAN do it" syndrome.

Either way, yuck.

Ed
Old 3rd June 2004
  #9
Lives for gear
 
juniorhifikit's Avatar
 

Mike, have you ever seen this custom SSL fader that would spit out midi data, so you could automate the pitch of an H3000. Some guy I assisted for had one in the 80's.

Are you still using the BSS DPR 901II, or have you found a plugin that works as well?

I'm finding that being able to automate ANY parameter in ProTools (like EQ's) has reduced the number of mults I need on the console.
Old 3rd June 2004
  #10
Captain
 
Mike Shipley's Avatar
 

Sharp.....".either way yuk "is fine but if I'm working for a producer that wants something a certain way , then it's my job to help him do it. I don't think that Dusty Springfied is a ver good example......she always sounds like she has more reverb return than vocals , and inher era, the modern up front drumsounds etc were not around.....it was distant and washy. I'm not (well I am really) trying to defend Mutt , but if that's what he need's to do in order to get satisfied , tha't ok by me. There is room for every way of recording and mixing and that's half the fun of it. But you gotta find a better example than Dusty Springfield!!! It's also not "we do it cos we can" with Mutt. With other 's maybe....his record sales as a producer are in the 180,000,000 area and if he thinks that fussing with the vocal will help the commercial-ness of the song.....fine with me.
Comparing the 60's to today is apples and oranges.
1
Share
Old 3rd June 2004
  #11
Lives for gear
 
stealthbalance's Avatar
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by juniorhifikit
[B]Mike, have you ever seen this custom SSL fader that would spit out midi data, so you could automate the pitch of an H3000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

im not mike , but i just wanted to chime in and say that i was the one who created that midi interface for the ssl. i brought in michael parisi and carlton from
ssl to help with the technical design of it. basically , it was a voltage control to midi converter , where basically you would pick a bank of 8 faders on the ssl , and plug this box in via the ribbon connection underneath the ssl patch bay . it would allow you to turn on any of the faders or all of them for midi control. id usually use 2 faders to run an h3000 , one to control pitch , and the other to control pocket ( id come off the sync head). it had full control to pick which midi parameter to tweak , like pitchwheel, mod wheel , etc. also the last 4 faders could also just run voltage control out , as id also tap it to the back of those little mxr instant flangers and phasors and automate the sweep of the flange with that fader. it also had automatable inserts on and off. a fun and effective box for its time.

s
1
Share
Old 3rd June 2004
  #12
Lives for gear
 
juniorhifikit's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by stealthbalance
a fun and effective box for its time.
[/B]
For sure! I was most impressed at the time. I had no idea you made that thing. Aren't you glad we don't have to do it that way any more? I'd have to say since my professional career (what ever that means) has started in the 80's, not much has changed since then as far as production techniques. Just the tools have gotten better. We've all been tuning, editing, and flying sections around for decades - it's just easier now.
Old 3rd June 2004
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

I mentioned Dusty because she was such a fine vocalist. Her version of "Look Of Love" from the "casino royale" soundtrack album stands the test of time.

You would have to agree DS was in a different league than a ST, no?

All one has to do is go through Burt Bacharach's catalogue and listen to all the amazing vocalists singing amazing (and difficult) songs with busy and thick arrangements without the aid of auto tune and the edited-from-dozens-of-takes vocal patchwork.

All intended to be played in deliciously lo-fi mono and mostly ion the AM car radio.

I listened at dinner one night to the folks who comped together Jenny Lopez's first record. The stories they told were of a woman who flat couldn't sing. I frankly don't know if ST is as lame a musician as J-Lo, but J-Lo sells a lot of records, too.

In the 70's, jingle singers had to come into a studio, actually READ down a part, deliver a performance in a certain style and be clear and articulate over a three inch tv speaker or AM car radio without the aid of any of today's "crummy musician fix it" tools.

Or, just look at how the Mills Brothers made records, or the Andrew's Sisters; amazing harmonies sung perfectly!!

They sold a lot of records, too.

I know I'm beating a dead horse. We have "stars" today who could never have attained success back in the day. And I quite agree with you re: your role as producer. You've got to do what's asked of you, no doubt and I take it through the admiration you get from others around here, you do it well.

It's an interesting discussion and I'd like to keep it going.

Ed
Old 3rd June 2004
  #14
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
Thanks for all the details Mike

Shane
Old 4th June 2004
  #15
Captain
 
Mike Shipley's Avatar
 

Sharp , point taken in terms of the Burt Bacharach stuff etc the arrangements and the vocals from his guest singers are still amazing as you point out.
In all honesty with Shania , she is an equal partner with Mutt in terms of songwriting etc. There are a lot of girls who are not that talented and have to be spoon fed etc. but Shania is definately NOT one of those. Mutt is known for his control etc but there's is an equal partnership. She is also his wife so she doesnt put up with any crap anyway!!!
Your point is spot on about the Andrew's sisters etc , but one difference is that productions are a lot denser these days and Burt Bacharach just doesnt cut it these days other than as easy listening music in the supermarket . Sad but true , and there is a level of energy that can be played around with that involve more modern techniques.
I like that Burt Bacharach/Elvis Costello record as well but it's just not for todays audience unfortunately but those arrangements are beautiful and so open , so much room for the vocals to breathe.
Shania is just one out of so many thousands of artists and there is room for her as well as the real purist singers and performers. I know some of this stuff must sound crazy but working this way is just one end of the spectrum.
Old 4th June 2004
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

I'll take your word for it re ST.

That Burt/Elvis record, I bet, will sound great 20 years and more from now, but I bet we won't feel the same about many of today's "modern" records.

I work in tv/film (three emmys) and write and produce everything from the most dense orchestral, current loopy techno (and all the sub categories that entails these days) and simple underscore for dramatic shows. So, yeah, I'm fully aware of all the modern techniques. For me, it's more about keeping my piano in tune and my guitars maintained.

Full disclosure: I use everything available to me on my PT HD accel rig However, I don't have the time to give in to massive tweaking. Even if I did, my musical training would stop me short along the way and say "let's get a better player or write a better (perhaps simpler) part".

However, I love cutting sections, moving them around, turning sounds from my acoustic piano into gothic horror drones ( Bruno Reso's pretty neat) building my own drum/perc loops ,etc. in short, anything I can think of.

I'll also spend many off hours programming the best synth engine ever made, the Kurzweil K series.

I've got a tough one this weekend, though, I've got to write a "modern" piece in the style of a mid 50's romantic comedy for broadcast immediately. Arghhhhh....

Ed
Old 4th June 2004
  #17
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

I think it's easy to over-romanticize the '60s. We did a lot more than most people think but a lot less than many younger people think you need to do. The only secret was that we had a lots deeper talent pool because there was a lot more work available for performers.
Old 4th June 2004
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
I think it's easy to over-romanticize the '60s. We did a lot more than most people think but a lot less than many younger people think you need to do. The only secret was that we had a lots deeper talent pool because there was a lot more work available for performers.
All good points.

It's interesting to note the number of errors that are there on many of those records.

I was always amazed with how sloppy the playing was on the early version of "Get Ready", the timing here (in the breaks) is pretty bad, even by early/mid 60's standards. You would've thought a retake would've been essential.

Sometime it'd be fun if you'd let us in on some of the things you "did" to those records back then
Old 4th June 2004
  #19
Mindreader
 
BevvyB's Avatar
 

totally there on the whole vocal/ride thing.

whatever it takes.

also, with all this ease of use, be daft not to.

can make or break the immediacy of a track. if you want instant accessible I'm not sure how else you would do it. the trend for 'its a cool 70's crushed and compressed vocal sound' just doesn't grab me, reminds me of that thread Jules started about UK bands doing monotone chant monk singing.

and it's stuff like this that makes mixes sound bigger I'm sure.
Old 5th June 2004
  #20
Lives for gear
 

technology is always developing and we learn to use it and give feedback to further development.
what ist it good for? we can put more energy and density in a recording, make it more perfect, and maybe work runs also quicker.
more than this: music can leave the borders of physical production. strange feelings and sounds that are in our minds can be "materialized" better than some years before..

I think an important change happened in how the TEAM works. the technician is more and more involved into "culture".

when mike is tweaking every other tone, this needs his deep feeling about what is right and helpful to the song, and his clients as well as the audience must agree with him for success.
different from the "unplugged" era, the producers and technicians create a more important part of the vision that the product is to the recipients. (here also sound programming of keyboards and effects.)

the rapper and his DJ, or shania and mike, it is a new kind of team that extends the teamwork that always was between singers and their bands.

an interesting question:
if shania suddenly change her mind and have other, new folks process her vocals and mix the tracks, would this change the sound and feeling of her new releases?
I think, if the answer is a definite yes, this would be a very good thing for music and music lovers. it would show that there is more creativity in nowdays pop music than people think.
(and mike, no misunderstanding, this is about change and style, not because of "better" or that I would wish it so
still I'm not her biggest fan, but now I begin to understand her success better, it's also yours)

everyone has focus in the artist, but a successful song (and video) is more and more team work. often the artist becomes very virtual then...
but this can break the connection to the audience. the boom with casting show stars is an answer to this, but potentially a bad one, because the winners often get "virtualized" very suddenly also, and their connection to the fans is being exploited.

what do you think about my idea heh there should be a casting show with one or two mediocre singers, and the candidates are sound mixers and producers, who create recordings with them, one a week from each !!
then the result has to beg for the votes...
the winner is rewarded with a contract with a beautiful singer of choice (as within reach of the record company endorsing the show).
Old 13th June 2004
  #21
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Sharp11
You would've thought a retake would've been essential.
There may well have been a retake that didn't feel as good overall. We were always told "tape is cheap." Great production is about choosing the right priorities. As long as "what's right" overshadows "what's wrong," you're usually ok.

Where people blow it is overproduced recordings that have nothing wrong with them but also nothing right.
Old 13th June 2004
  #22
Captain
 
Mike Shipley's Avatar
 

Bob , weren't there plenty of 60's and 70's records with nothing wrong with them but nothing right also , for whatever reason ?
Old 14th June 2004
  #23
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Sure, there's always been overproduction but I'm thinking about what the MEMORABLE records from that era had in common.

I would also agree that it takes nerve to come from Motown and talk about overproduction! Still we frequently went past "it" and then took a step back to what we finally released. The artists were never being charged for studio time so we definitely had enough rope to hang ourselves production-wise. We also had what was called the "quality control" department holding our feet to the fire and demanding great feeling performances and mixes.

Today so much of it has become expensive marketing rather than the intrinsic qualities of a recording generating a huge word of mouth following without spending a ton of money. Too often we compete as much in what we spend as in what we create musically.
Old 14th June 2004
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Jose Mrochek's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by chessparov
Dusty's catalogue will never match Shania's in terms of sales, yet will always exceed it in
overall artistic vocal performance IMHO.

Sort of like claiming McDonalds must have the best burgers since "Billions and Billions" have been sold. heh heh

Please understand that I like Shania a lot, however, Dusty was operating on a higher
level from the actual performance standpoint.


(as if you didn't already know)
I can't disagree with you more Chris, correct me if I'm wrong but you are not considering consumer taste and opinion. I personaly think McDonalds is the best, because I love it.. YES I DO!!! not because they sold billons.. really, i'm not lying and yes i've tried every other fast food chain in the US. If millons are buying britney spears albums or the backstreet boys or whatever, they think it rocks and it moves them, enough to spend money in a record. There is some high quality pop music out there today, that you guys are not giving credit to. And yes, I'm a floyd and beatle fan, and basically all I listen to.. but I do respect the new stuff coming out.. it is as artistic and well made as any record in the 60's or 70's. I think good music is the music that moves masses. Whatever it is, and if someone listens to a song of yours and you can bring a tear out or goose bumps, I think the song did the job. It's like saying jazz is more artistic than pop. Not many people get goose bumps from jazz music.. I personaly hate it, even though the musicians are amazing.. it doesn't move me a tiny bit. Good music is the music that moves you, now , yesterday and tommorrow.. the rest is just "art".
Old 14th June 2004
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
[B]Sure, there's always been overproduction but I'm thinking about what the MEMORABLE records from that era had in common.

I would also agree that it takes nerve to come from Motown and talk about overproduction! T

This reminds of the the teamwork present in those days.

The jobs were clearly defined: There was a producer, the songwriters, the arrangers, performers, studio players, engineers, etc.

So, when it came time to record a song, at least most of the parts were written out, even if just as rhythm charts, and "arranged" (of course Jamerson was allowed a certain amount of freedom or has Carol Kaye claimed the last of his bass parts).

So many records today are built from the bottom up by people who aren't musicians or are, at best, let's say "limited" in musical scope.

This leads to the "throwing up and let's see what sticks" syndrome. I've worked with young producers who do this. They just keep adding and adding stuff and then have to peel away....Easy to do in PT and such, but also easy to lead the less talented astray and I believe, the need to "fix" things...

We have the same problem in the film/tv world (except at the highest levels where there are still teams involved). Lots of folks calling themselves "composers" when what they really are are editors.

In the interest of calling it as I see it, the same problem exists in reverse, that is, really fine composers/arrangers pretending to be good engineers and mixers just because the power of the tools allows for it with the inevitable overcompressing, overlimiting, harsh eq'ing etc.(although I'd rather hear a fine piece of writing poorly mixed than the reverse).

In the hands of capable musicians and engineers, the new ways of working are fantastic. However, I now do the job of six people and some days, it's quite tiresome.

This is all a part of the democratization of the industry and the inevitable "breakdown" of the teamwork we once knew.

Instead of us all knowing and working with one another in the real world, today,with our daws and internet access, we interact "virtually".

Ed
Old 14th June 2004
  #26
Lives for gear
 
Jose Mrochek's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Sharp11


So many records today are built from the bottom up by people who aren't musicians or are, at best, let's say "limited" in musical scope.




Ed

Please define musician???!!. I'm not trying to be a smartass, but this Before was nice, now it sucks thing is getting to me. grudge sorry
Old 14th June 2004
  #27
More cowbell!
 
natpub's Avatar
While I don't think they automated alternate EQ's on every syllable, I do recall reading a thread where George Massenburg gave just a peak into how much work he put into Linda Ronstadt vox tracks, even with an artist known to be a very strong vocalist.

This was even before the more demanding mix densities and proportions of today.

I guess all I'm saying is that the work Mike-n-Mutt put into those vocals is not new-fangled, and does not need to reflect negatively on the skill of the vocalist.



Quote:
...but this "Before was nice, now it sucks" thing is getting to me...
totally agree



--KT
Old 14th June 2004
  #28
Mindreader
 
BevvyB's Avatar
 

People are now having to learn songs a lot quicker than they did. There isn't even a weeks rehearsing with a pianist to go over the songs. The musical director would direct the performance. The engineer would record it. The arranger would arrange around the vocalist.

Now it's mainly the job of one man, producer. This doesn't mean it's quicker. If you really want to get the singer to sing well you can't avoid the real work.

1. Learning the song

Go and learn the bloody song so although you need the words you have this in your head enough to start 'work'

2. Experimenting with the song

Trying different ways of singing, checking keys for highest note, lowest note, perhaps do rough recordings of couple of different keys to live with. A semitone can make all the difference.

3. Working on the songs overall shape regarding the vocal

The vocal will change the shape of the song and therefore the arrangement hence more arranging after the vocal is finalized, perhaps a whole new version should vocal go where no vocal has gone before

4. Covering the vocal technicalities of the song

Some stuff just sounds good some doesn't, certain notes can get changed for the 'sound', where to breathe, where NOT to breath, where to breathe more for dramatic effect etc Marking up the lyric sheet etc

5. Working on the performance angle

Getting into the mental space required to milk maximum juice out of all areas of the performance, emotionally and technically, getting into 'the groove' with the singer

6. Judging/experimenting on the mic technique that befits the song

Such things as: you realize that to sound 'rock' in the chorus actually means holding back, becoming more strained and getting closer to the mic, singing softer and controlling the performance, as opposed to 'just getting louder' which for some reason just sounds 'smaller'....on this song anyway, with this singer, today...

7. Taking time

Realizing that today the vocals just ain't happening, move on and do dwums or guitars instead (or fiddling with other vocals he he)

8.9....

Not much to do with computers or mixing desks.

People have been rehearsing for things since time began. It's only now that we put the artist in front of the mike on day one and expect results.

Won't happen. Not results I want anyway.

The better the singer, the more exciting it is to do all these things, and the greater the potential of the singer, the more you want to work on it.

This is of course different from spending a week autotuning an 18 year old with a rich father destined for obscurity...

Some people can't stand 'working on vocals' - well, be prepared to put as much work in as has already been left out by the other 'missing' parts of the jigsaw

This is why some producers and artists have vocal coaches and vocal producers. However, that won't help you much with 6. Which is the missing link and one of the things most likely to make a recording 'dynamite' or not.

Of course there's always 'stick up a mic man and just do it wheres the natural vibe you dont need all this if youve got talent' thing - but if you know what you're doing you should be aiming for making the artist sound like a star , telling the song as well as it can be but AT THE SAME TIME making it sound effortless as if a mic just HAD been stuck up and it all 'just happened'

OK, teaching y'all to suck eggs here, but I thought I should just mention that getting a vocal right has always taken time, in whatever form, and is mostly not about 'recording'. The fact that we now go straight to the mic is just how it is nowadays.

Opera singing. Now theres some rehearsals. Then we turn up with two mics and record the whole thing in one pass.

The best breathiness I personally have ever had on vocals is when the vocalist has found a way of 'doing that' somehow either by luck or skill by vertue of them being able to sing well. Sometimes a whole take or two where we 'try out' stuff has this quality - and the key can really change the singers ability to do this, as well as the actual notes...getting a singer to replicate this 'moment' can be quite difficult....

...however, if you ain't recorded it, it aint there. Now I only speak for myself, but I've only been able to put extra breathiness in vocals if they were actually breathy in the first place. I've never found a way of making people more husky either. I have however managed to make people sound more toppy.

Singing so that you're on the cusp of whispering but still actually singing is peculiar and individual to each singer. In my experience it is strangely ellusive, as when the singer tries to immediately 'turn on the breathiness' it sounds fake and silly. It's something akin to being on the continuous edge of a yawn with a very open throat and the perfect distance from the mic to capture the proximity effect at its fullest, so not only do you get the breathiness but you get the fullness - if you miss this on the mic you just get whispery crap which is very hollow...

This also seems to come when the singer is relaxed and well warmed up - its not something that you can just start doing immediately at the beginning of a session...and this breathiness is like a whisper from the back of the throat, like an ahhh sound...

...also if the song is actually WRITTEN so it can be SUNG like this it also helps! The vowels and sounds used in the song can either help or hinder, and CHANGING the words can help (I change and omit words all the time to follow the feeling of the vocal)

Why am I saying all this? 'Cos I'm in the middle of vocals ha ha ha

Hope some of this answered the original question.
Old 14th June 2004
  #29
Lives for gear
 
zboy2854's Avatar
 

I think there definitely can be a tendency to over-romanticize the past, especially when we don't necessarily know how everything was done.

I worked not too long ago with Charles Calello, who produced and arranged for Frank Sinatra among others, and he told me about how he used primitive harmonizers and tape machines to fix Frank's pitch, which became a tedious process, much like EQing syllables with Shania. Since the advent of the multitrack studio there have always been examples of these kinds of "meat grinder" production techniques that may shock purists, but ultimately have been around in one form or another for a long time.

It just reminds me of the saying about how making records is like making sausages, the end result is palatable, but you don't want to see how it's done.heh
Old 14th June 2004
  #30
Mindreader
 
BevvyB's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by zboy2854
making records is like making sausages, the end result is palatable, but you don't want to see how it's done.heh
I like that

heh
Loading mentioned products ...
Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
sparklehorse617 / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
10
J-Deb / So much gear, so little time!
7

Forum Jump